Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Scott Lloyd]

Has someone accused the late Sis. Okazaki of being "unfaithful?" CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Certainly not I.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think this argument has improved any since the days of women's suffrage 

Non-sequitur. What has this got to do with what constitutes a "female perspective"?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've read that women were consulted in bringing together the Proc but it was not those who held positions in the auxiliaries but instead associates of those who did put together the Proc.

 

 

(I don't say apostles because I believe it was actually put together by a committee, which probably included apostles and 70s,  and then presented to the Quorum and FP.  Don't ask for a CFR because I've only read it in comments and no one has documented it.  Plus, I don't think that is a bad thing.  I expect that is how a lot of things are done in the Church.  But it also takes away the notion that it was a revelation received and written down by the Twelve and FP like we think of revelation.) 

What this says to me, if is true, that women were consulted but perhaps they chose women that they knew already had an idea of what they wanted to say and why they wanted to say what they did.  

Or (assuming it's true) it could be surmised that the Brethren were egalitarian in their approach, in that they went to women who did not necessarily occupy highly visible positions in the Church (perhaps because they were already somewhat acquainted with the perspectives of the highly visible women).

[Scott Lloyd]

At the end of the video Aileen Clyde during a Q&A segment she comments on the lack of the RS Presidency's input on the Proclamation.  Maybe they are out there but they are not so easy to find.  Q&A starts at 20 min in and is quite short.

http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/cms/id/27

I still don't grasp the conclusion that because it was presented in "their" meeting that they should have been granted the privilege to proofread and even make changes to it before it was presented.

 

As Sister Clyde recounts here, President Hinckley could have chosen any of a number of other venues or platforms for announcing the proclamation and, in fact, had not even made a decision when and where to announce it before the occasion spoken of here.

[rockpond]

Are you listening to me, rockpond?

 

I suggested one possible reason President Packer himself might have chosen to alter the wording: to avoid possible confusion in the minds of those -- like Gray -- who cannot or will not differentiate between revelation that conveys a directive and revelation that conveys new doctrine. The former category may well apply to the proclamation, but the latter would not.

 

Yes, I'm listening.  I'm just finding this to be one of your less compelling suggestions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I'm listening.  I'm just finding this to be one of your less compelling suggestions.

The point is, nobody can with confidence or competence profess to know definitively the reason for the alteration in wording, not without asking President Packer himself or consulting someone else in as good as or better position to know.

 

So, I reiterate the statement I made earlier: "I submit that you are reading too much into a general conference speaker's exercise of personal privilege in altering the written form in which his own talk appears."

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a blog post from Daniel Peterson that poses the question: "If prophets always agreed with us, what good would they be?"

 

Of course, with some folks in this day and age, it's goes even further than that: Not only do they want prophets to always agree with them, but they want prophets to move more quickly to do whatever they tell the prophets to do.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mtomm]

I still don't grasp the conclusion that because it was presented in "their" meeting that they should have been granted the privilege to proofread and even make changes to it before it was presented.

 

As Sister Clyde recounts here, President Hinckley could have chosen any of a number of other venues or platforms for announcing the proclamation and, in fact, had not even made a decision when and where to announce it before the occasion spoken of here.

 

Yep, I think a lot do not grasp it. You would not be alone.

[ksfisher]

Here's a blog post from Daniel Peterson that poses the question: "If prophets always agreed with us, what good would they be?"

 

Of course, with some folks in this day and age, it's goes even further than that: Not only do they want prophets to always agree with them, but they want prophets to move more quickly to do whatever they tell the prophets to do.

President Ezra Taft Benson once observed, "The world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs."

 

"It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets," President Marion G. Romney said, "but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets."

[Gray]

Why?

 

For one thing, many of the scriptures where you see that kind of language are psuedonymous. And two, my life experience has brought me to the point where specific revelation doesn't seem tenable to me, but very broad revelation (or even better, inspiration) does. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Has someone accused the late Sis. Okazaki of being "unfaithful?" CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I can't give a reference for a position I haven't taken. 

[Gray]

I don't think so. Meanwhile, I think you have a lot of assumptions about revelation in the Church (such as the possibility that the upper quorums in the Church can receive revelation despite lacking a first-person proportional "perspective" from women, from singles, from widowers, from twenty-somethings, from poor Bolivians, from middle-class Italians, and on and on and on...).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We all have our assumptions, it's true. 

[Gray]

Non-sequitur. What has this got to do with what constitutes a "female perspective"?

 

The female perspective includes many women who want the priesthood and many who don't. And many who would be active members today if not for current policy.

 

Appealing to what you think the majority might want doesn't really address the issue, does it?

[smac97]

I can't give a reference for a position I haven't taken.

You said, speaking of Sis. Okazaki: "She was outspoken in a culture that does not value outspokenness. That does not make her unfaithful, but sadly some people equate the two."

"That does not make her unfaithful." Again, who has claimed that Sis. Okazaki was "unfaithful?" Who are thethe "some people" you refer to here? CFR, please. Or else retract your accusation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

For one thing, many of the scriptures where you see that kind of language are psuedonymous. And two, my life experience has brought me to the point where specific revelation doesn't seem tenable to me, but very broad revelation does. 

As I indicated earlier, revelation in the form of feelings and impressions is far and away the most frequent kind and perhaps the only kind that most of us are apt to experience in mortality. But that doesn't negate or make untenable the existence of other, more precise, forms of revelation. In fact it stands to reason that such experiences are by their very nature exceptional, they would be the kind that would receive attention (or get "written up" as it were) in the scriptures.

[Gray]

You said, speaking of Sis. Okazaki: "She was outspoken in a culture that does not value outspokenness. That does not make her unfaithful, but sadly some people equate the two."

"That does not make her unfaithful." Again, who has claimed that Sis. Okazaki was "unfaithful?" Who are thethe "some people" you refer to here? CFR, please. Or else retract your accusation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I didn't say some people were specifically calling Sister Okazaki unfaithful. If you'll read what I wrote carefully, you'll see I said that some people equate outspokenness with unfaithfulness. I think that's a true observation. 

 

I hope that you can read my posts as charitably as I try to read yours, and not ask me to respond to distorted versions of them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The female perspective includes many women who want the priesthood and many who don't. And many who would be active members today if not for current policy.

 

Appealing to what you think the majority might want doesn't really address the issue, does it?

It is you who referred to "the female perspective" as though it were some sort of monolith.

 

Now you are backpedaling and watering down your earlier assertion by saying that "the female perspective" includes viewpoints that are all over the lot.

[Gray]

As I indicated earlier, revelation in the form of feelings and impressions is far and away the most frequent kind and perhaps the only kind that most of us are apt to experience in mortality. But that doesn't negate or make untenable the existence of other, more precise, forms of revelation. In fact it stands to reason that such experiences are by their very nature exceptional, they would be the kind that would receive attention (or get "written up" as it were) in the scriptures.

 

Anything is possible, but I don't personally believe we get that kind of revelation. 

[Gray]

It is you who referred to "the female perspective" as though it were some sort of monolith.

 

Now you are backpedaling and watering down your earlier assertion by saying that "the female perspective" includes viewpoints that are all over the lot.

 

I don't think I'm backpedaling. I'm just saying, an appeal to a majority position doesn't really tell the whole story, and it certainly isn't a reason to ban the women who sincerely desire the priesthood from having it. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[smac97]

I didn't say some people were specifically calling Sister Okazaki unfaithful. If you'll read what I wrote carefully, you'll see I said that some people equate outspokenness with unfaithfulness. I think that's a true observation. 

 

I hope that you can read my posts as charitably as I try to read yours, and not ask me to respond to distorted versions of them.

I try to read charitably, but it was you who injected the idea of "unfaithfulness" into the discussion of Sis. Okazaki. That said, I see where you are coming from. Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think I'm backpedaling. I'm just saying, an appeal to a majority position doesn't really tell the whole story, and it certainly isn't a reason to ban the women who sincerely desire the priesthood from having it. 

You have essentially said "the female perspective" takes in a whole spectrum of viewpoints. Which pretty much makes the term meaningless.

[smac97]

The female perspective includes many women who want the priesthood and many who don't.

So the highest quorums would need to have delegates from both groups?

And many who would be active members today if not for current policy.

I do not think it is accurate to characterize the male-only ordination of the priesthood as a "policy."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

I try to read charitably, but it was you who injected the idea of "unfaithfulness" into the discussion of Sis. Okazaki. That said, I see where you are coming from. Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Thanks! Much appreciated. I often fire off a response very quickly between tasks and I admit I'm not always as clear as I'd like to be. I try not to insinuate things though - if I want to say something I usually just say it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I try to read charitably, but it was you who injected the idea of "unfaithfulness" into the discussion of Sis. Okazaki. That said, I see where you are coming from. Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanks,

-Smac

I myself wondered where that came from, especially since up to then, it had been mostly me who was the other party to the conversation -- and I knew I wasn't accusing Sister Okazaki of unfaithfulness.

 

But I don't know that it takes all that much courage to be outspoken. I'm pretty outspoken here on the board, and I'm one of the few who posts under his real name. That's a matter of principle with me, but I've never really considered it a great act of valor.

[smac97]

You have essentially said "the female perspective" takes in a whole spectrum of viewpoints. Which pretty much makes the term meaningless.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

It also seriously undercuts the necessity of having women in the Quorum. After all, the Brethren also do not have a "perspective" across the whole spectrum of men, either, but that doesn't mean "the whole spectrum" must have a delegation on the Quorum.

This vivisection of priesthood quorums into differing viewpoints is not tenable. I prefer the current process, which centers on revelation and ascertaining the will of God, not pop psychology references to a non-existent "female perspective."

Thanks,

-Smac